You are right, why have a clearly decent discussion when we can spend time being right!

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.

You are right, why have a clearly decent discussion when we can spend time being right!

What discussion is there to have, at least on this thread? Clearly there was no invasion, and I still think that there won't be. Why did you choose to necro it two years after it was started anyways? If you have new evidence, why bump this as opposed to making a new thread?

You are right, why have a clearly decent discussion when we can spend time being right!

What discussion is there to have, at least on this thread? Clearly there was no invasion, and I still think that there won't be. Why did you choose to necro it two years after it was started anyways? If you have new evidence, why bump this as opposed to making a new thread?

Clearly none of this has anything to do with Iran. Nothing to see here, move along!

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.

I don't know what America's going to do, but it's certainly not going to sit on the world's most expensive military and do nothing while its dollar collapses. Germany may not have been successful back then, but I doubt that'll stop a government as desperate as this one.

You are right, why have a clearly decent discussion when we can spend time being right!

What discussion is there to have, at least on this thread? Clearly there was no invasion, and I still think that there won't be. Why did you choose to necro it two years after it was started anyways? If you have new evidence, why bump this as opposed to making a new thread?

Clearly none of this has anything to do with Iran. Nothing to see here, move along!

No, I think it has to do with Syria, from the looks of things. Last time I checked, Iran is not the same country as Syria, but I could be wrong. In any case, the major "opponent" of the US in the Syrian Civil War is Russia, but we are clearly not going to go to war with them over this one country.

No, I think it has to do with Syria, from the looks of things. Last time I checked, Iran is not the same country as Syria, but I could be wrong. In any case, the major "opponent" of the US in the Syrian Civil War is Russia, but we are clearly not going to go to war with them over this one country.

They have a mutual defense treaty. The US has been unsuccessful at provoking Iran, so they are trying to start a proxy war through Syria.

No, I think it has to do with Syria, from the looks of things. Last time I checked, Iran is not the same country as Syria, but I could be wrong. In any case, the major "opponent" of the US in the Syrian Civil War is Russia, but we are clearly not going to go to war with them over this one country.

They have a mutual defense treaty. The US has been unsuccessful at provoking Iran, so they are trying to start a proxy war through Syria.

"If America were to attack Syria, Iran along with Syria's allies will take action, which would amount to a fiasco for America,"

Quote from: Reuters

Assoudi's comments were first carried by the government-linked news agency Young Journalists' Club but were later apparently taken down from the group's website.

Quote from: Reuters

Iran and Syria signed a mutual defense pact in 2006, but little is known of its details, or whether there are any other signatories.

Sounds like a bunch of hot air coming from Iran. This "mutual defense pact" obviously hasn't seen much use, as Hamas has been attacking Assad yet it still receives Iranian funding. In any case, I doubt that Iran would be so foolish as to attack the US troops if Syria was invaded. They wouldn't stand a chance, and it would give Israel an excuse to crack down on neighboring Arab countries.

However, as far as I know the US government has no intentions to send actual troops in, so I don't see how Iran could be provoked into a war. I also don't see the point in going to war with Iran anyways, since whichever politicians advocated it would be committing political suicide.

No, I think it has to do with Syria, from the looks of things. Last time I checked, Iran is not the same country as Syria, but I could be wrong. In any case, the major "opponent" of the US in the Syrian Civil War is Russia, but we are clearly not going to go to war with them over this one country.

They have a mutual defense treaty. The US has been unsuccessful at provoking Iran, so they are trying to start a proxy war through Syria.

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.

People just enjoy masturbating their egos in public as if they get a prize for self proclaimed expertise. I bumped this discussion to, I dunno DISCUSS the issue, not to get +1 internets points in the hierarchy of basement dweller correctitude.

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.

Seems to me that Saudi Arabia would be more likely to initiate an attack on Iran, given the Shiite vs Sunni sectarian battles that have been going on for a long time. If anything, that would be the most likely start of a regional conflict and Israel would just join in for shits and giggles.

No, I think it has to do with Syria, from the looks of things. Last time I checked, Iran is not the same country as Syria, but I could be wrong. In any case, the major "opponent" of the US in the Syrian Civil War is Russia, but we are clearly not going to go to war with them over this one country.

They have a mutual defense treaty. The US has been unsuccessful at provoking Iran, so they are trying to start a proxy war through Syria.

No, I think it has to do with Syria, from the looks of things. Last time I checked, Iran is not the same country as Syria, but I could be wrong. In any case, the major "opponent" of the US in the Syrian Civil War is Russia, but we are clearly not going to go to war with them over this one country.

They have a mutual defense treaty. The US has been unsuccessful at provoking Iran, so they are trying to start a proxy war through Syria.

No, I think it has to do with Syria, from the looks of things. Last time I checked, Iran is not the same country as Syria, but I could be wrong. In any case, the major "opponent" of the US in the Syrian Civil War is Russia, but we are clearly not going to go to war with them over this one country.

They have a mutual defense treaty. The US has been unsuccessful at provoking Iran, so they are trying to start a proxy war through Syria.

Unless I'm mistaken, the US does not import oil (or anything) from Iran, and there are economic sanctions on countries that do. If Iran started using the USD, it would make no difference as the US does not import oil from them anyways.

And again, why does this "mutual defense treaty" not apply to Hamas? If the US wants to provoke Iran, they're going to have to try harder because apparently going to war with Assad is not enough to warrant the stopping of funding, let alone military action.